Text Size

-

+

reset

Then, as now, the world has been horrified by violence in the region. Then, as now, the drumbeat of increased military operations has grown louder. And then, as now, a president whose political rise was partly defined by his opposition to interventions abroad must decide whether to escalate American involvement, either on his own or with permission from Congress.

So Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis: worried about political support on Capitol Hill for a vote on intervention and held back by his own visceral resistance to unilateral military action.

The White House, for the record, says this is not the same dilemma Obama faced last Labor Day.

“The goal of the mission from last year was aimed squarely at the [Bashar] Assad regime,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “The situation a year later is markedly different.”

Last year, the White House argues, the question was whether the U.S. should put its combat boot onto the scales of the Syrian civil war, tipping them in favor of moderate fighters in their struggle against Assad, Syria’s president. Now, the question is whether the U.S. should expand to Syria its current operations in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which Pentagon and other leaders warn is an ever-growing threat to the U.S.

“They can be contained. Not in perpetuity,” said Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. “This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated. … Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.”

Already, military surveillance flights over Syria have begun, according to reports on Tuesday, enabling commanders to get a real-time picture of what’s happening on the ground and select potential targets if they get the order.

Members of Congress are feeling déjà vu of their own — now, like last year, they are worried about the prospect of a tough vote to authorize an attack in Syria. Defense advocates already complain that Obama has done nothing to sell his plan to arm and train vetted Syrian rebels, and even some of his own allies worry he will put in a similarly lackluster effort if he decides to order an attack sooner.

“I urge the administration to use the next two weeks to clearly define the strategy and objectives of its mission against ISIL, then bring it to Congress for a debate and authorization vote,” said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. “I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action — it is what the framers of the Constitution intended, and Congress and the executive have a responsibility to do the hard work to build a political consensus in support of our military mission.”

Like last year, Republican defense hawks have repeatedly urged Obama to do more militarily and have lambasted the White House for not taking strong enough action — even after Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq.